The Glasgow summit’s final agreement: what you need to know

This year’s UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) has ended after more than two weeks of discussions and negotiations. What’s in the final agreement; what’s been left out and what does this mean for climate change?

Delegates embrace as Glasgow summit hammers out final agreement. Credit: Getty Images Europe

What actually happened?

The Glasgow summit concluded almost a day late with a set of final decisions that have been cautiously welcomed by many observers. The agreement is not yet enough to put the world on a path to holding global warming to 1.5 degrees, but commitments made should both reduce emissions this decade and accelerate momentum.

It calls on countries like Australia that did not improve their 2030 targets before Glasgow to do so as soon as possible before the next round of talks in Egypt next November. It recognises that to keep 1.5 degrees in reach, urgent action must be taken this decade; and to encourage that, it calls for an annual stocktake of how countries are tracking, along with annual ministerial meetings to accelerate action. The decision’s language also shifts the political focus onto the 1.5 degree warming target mentioned in the Paris Agreement, from the less ambitious “well below 2 degrees” also referred to in that accord.

Will it have any impact on global warming?

In the words of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the 1.5-degree ambition is alive, but on life support. According to the research group Climate Action Tracker, if all the pledges and commitments made in the lead-up to the COP, at the summit and on its sidelines were to be achieved, the world could be on a pathway to 1.8 degrees warming.

This is not necessarily the good news it appears to be, warns Bill Hare, chief executive of Climate Analytics. This is because many of the commitments are so far not supported with formal government policy.

“It’s all very well for leaders to claim they have a net-zero target, but if they have no plans as to how to get there, and their 2030 targets are as low as so many of them are, then frankly, these net zero targets are just lip service to real climate action. Glasgow has a serious credibility gap,” he said.

What does it mean for Australia?

Australia remained isolated from its traditional friends and allies in Glasgow, and was instead viewed as part of a tacit alliance with other fossil fuel export nations such as Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Russia. These nations were perceived to be seeking to slow rather than accelerate the pace of transition from fossil fuels and weaken key parts of the COP text.

Though some elements were watered down, the final version mentioned the need to accelerate the transition from coal for the first time, suggesting the world does not agree with the Australian government’s view that the industry has a long-term future. Eventually, Australia endorsed a decision that for the first time mentioned a fossil fuel phase-out.

The deal also means the Morrison government will have to decide whether to ignore the summit’s request for stronger 2030 targets, or overturn its opposition to doing so.

Why are people talking about loss and damage?

One of the most contentious areas of the talks was the call by developing nations to create a financial mechanism for wealthy nations to pay for loss and damage being caused by climate change in climate-vulnerable developing nations. Such a mechanism has long been opposed by wealthy nations who fear it may imply culpability and set them up for heavy ongoing costs.

To the voting bloc known as the G77 plus China – which represents 134 developing countries – this was a central element of the talks. Though the EU, the UK and the US backed many of the G77’s concerns, they would not support the mechanism. Instead, the summit finished without a resolution on these big emerging questions, so organisers resorted to establishing a new “dialogue” to thrash out over the coming months “arrangements for the funding of activities to avert, minimise and address loss and damage associated with the adverse impacts of climate change”.

A man walks past a house abandoned because of the rising sea level in Sidogemah, Central Java, Indonesia. Credit: AP

What happened with financing?

A second concern of developing countries was the failure of wealthy nations to secure $US100 billion in annual finance by 2020 to help them green their economies, as was promised in 2010 but never delivered.

The COP final decision noted the failure “with deep regret” and urged developed countries “to fully deliver on the $US100 billion goal urgently and through to 2025”. It also urged developed nations to at least double their collective provision of aid directed towards climate adaptation in developing countries by 2025.

What happened with coal?

The summit failed to commit to the elimination of coal as hoped, after furious last-minute horse-trading saw language in the pact watered-down from a “phase out” to the much weaker “phase down” of unabated coal power. India and China led the charge to weaken the text, to the anger of other developed and developing countries. COP26 president Alok Sharma broke down while apologising for the weaker language making it into the text.

Asked about getting emotional on stage, Sharma told reporters: “I’ve had about six hours sleep in the last three days. But you know, look, it is emotional, in the sense that collectively, as a team, we have achieved what I suspect, very many people doubted – probably until just the last few days.”

In a side-deal to the formal talks, 23 countries pledged to stop building and issuing permits for new coal plants, including major coal users such as Poland, Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam and Ukraine. Australia, China and the US were among nations that did not sign the pledge.

A separate pledge 20 countries, including the US, committed to end public financing for “unabated” overseas fossil fuel projects by the end of next year.

What happened with oil and gas?

An effort to establish an alliance to end the use of oil and gas won only limited support on the sidelines, with Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Greenland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales and the Canadian province of Quebec signing up. Portugal, California and New Zealand are “associate” members of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, while Italy is deemed a “friend” of the coalition.

What happened with cars?

A push to replace all new fuel car production with electric cars by mid-century had only partial support.

The summit failed to make significant inroads into the decarbonisation of the transport industry, despite COP host British Prime Minister Boris Johnson nominating the phasing out of dirty cars as one of his top priorities for the talks.

Transport emissions account for about a quarter of the world’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, with a transition to cleaner technology seen as crucial for leading economies to meet their Paris Agreement commitments. Just 32 countries signed a new pledge to stop selling petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040 at the latest, and major car-manufacturing nations such as China, the US, Germany and France all failed to sign up.

What happened with methane?

In a second side deal, more than 100 countries, including the US, Japan and Canada, pledged to cut emissions of methane to 30 per cent below 2020 levels by 2030. The move is considered important because, though there is less methane in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, it is a far more powerful warming agent. Australia did not sign the pledge.

The cover decision of the talks also mentioned methane for the first time, calling on nations “consider further actions to reduce” methane emissions by 2030.

What happened with forests?

More than 130 nations including forestry giants such as Brazil and Indonesia, as well as Australia, signed a pledge to end deforestation by 2030. The deal was accompanied by commitments of $US19 billion to help protect forests. Following the announcement, Indonesia clarified that it would not surrender economic growth to protecting forests and Brazil said it would only end “illegal logging”.

How big was the US-China deal?

US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry speaks with Special Climate Envoy of China Xie Zhenhua on the final day of the summit. Credit: Getty

One of the surprises of the meeting was a joint announcement by the US and China that they would work together on tackling climate change. In a statement the two countries said they would cooperate closely on cutting emissions and form a joint working group to “meet regularly to address the climate crisis”.

Though light on detail, the announcement was welcomed by observers who were relieved that the world’s two largest economies and greenhouse gas emitters could isolate climate action from their increasing rivalry. However, the two nations were on opposite sides of the final debate over “phasing out” coal.

What about the private sector?

The private sector was more engaged at this COP than ever before. Finance firms managing $US130 trillion in assets joined a net-zero pledge to be known as the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero (GFANZ).

“We now have the essential plumbing in place to move climate change from the fringes to the forefront of finance so that every financial decision takes climate change into account,” said the body’s chairman, Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of England. Some analysts questioned the organisation’s credibility and transparency.

Also in Glasgow, United States President Joe Biden announced the launch of a “First Movers Coalition”, a network helping green tech companies, including Australian businessman Andrew Forest’s Fortescue Future Industries, cooperate to accelerate their expansion.

Understand what is happening to the environment, what’s being done about it and what it means for the future. Sign up here.